Universities are citadels of blue model thinking and most faculty members are relentlessly liberal in their politics. But the reality is that these same universities are some of the nastiest and most exploitative employers in America. The exploitation of adjuncts is an ugly feature of contemporary American academic life, and the smug complacency about it among many beneficiaries of the two tier system should remind us all that moral hypocrisy can co-exist with impressive degrees.

People who live and work outside Washington, D.C., say their way of life and values have not changed. But they think those who live, work and legislate inside the Beltway have, frankly, gone bonkers about everything.
. . .
The president’s victory gave the Democrats’ party mechanism a sense of immense power and a desire to build on his urban brand — so much so that, every time he speaks, his organization emails backers to sign up in support of his agenda. That party-building mechanism is intended to inflate his influence on politics beyond Washington and to create a dynasty built on his brand.

Not unlike Andrew Jackson — the first president elected on personality, who invented the politics of us-versus-them — leading Democrats plan to use the influence of today‘s progressive-majority culture for generations, by mining support through technology.

Matthew Continetti, one of my favorite writers, wrote an eye opener last week, “‘A Conspiracy so Immense’: ideological commitment and the timidity of pragmatic politics”, too late for me to discuss in my column. It is one of the most important stories you’ll ever read anywhere and shows how far behind conservatives are in the fight against “progressive ” ideologues.

He picks up on a report by Andy Kroll in Mother Jones about a coordinated effort by about 36 different interest groups with reported revenues of no less than $1.69 billion, pledging millions of dollars to work together to attack conservative supporters and organizations, to intervene directly in Democratic politics, to push for filibuster reform to better enable a push through their agenda without any input from the opposition, and expanding “voting rights” and fighting voter registration laws to further grease the skids for their legislative agenda.

There’s just too much (of the wrong kind of) money in politics. Free speech for me but not for thee.

Kerry first became nationally famous as an opponent of the Cambodia bombings and the Vietnam War generally in the early 1970s.

Kerry’s efforts to distinguish the two cases are far from successful. He claims that the Libya intervention was legal because of the need for swift, decisive action. But of course Nixon could and did make the same argument. Paul correctly points out that the Constitution gives the power to declare war exclusively to Congress and does not create any exceptions for cases where presidents believe that they need to act quickly. Moreover, as Allahpundit points out, the president actually had plenty of time to seek and gain congressional approval before he started the bombing, as he spent weeks mobilizing support from the United Nations, our European allies, and others.

Another excellent question raised by Paul: Why are we sending big fancy fighter jets to Egypt even as the leader of that country is going full Capt. Queeg, with a fixation on the Jews standing in for obsession about stolen strawberries?

This sort of common-sense exploration of the WTF that is U.S. foreign policy should be at the forefront of any American who gives a hell about limited, legitimate government and the Constitution.